Mariology vs Mariolatry

Clint,

Although modern RC scholarship has taken to referring to the OT books the way protestants do, it used to be standard that the books of Kings and Chronicles were named differently by RCs. They used to number what we call 1,2 Samuel and 1,2 Kings as 1-4 Kings.

And may I compliment you on the way you conduct yourself here. You are an example to be followed.

 

Clint,

I just finished re-reading the article by the former nun and remembered why I disliked it the first time; it's full of holes.

Her quotes from the Catechism are generally two to three words. She sources, yes, but the average person reading things like this doesn't pull out his library and start checking things, which is what she is betting on.

Then I come across sentences talking about people with no names, but a footnote. So I read the footnote, and it tells me to read a book. Example:

"The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was first introduced by a heretic (a man whose teachings were officially declared to be contrary to Church doctrine). For centuries this doctrine was unanimously rejected by popes, Fathers and theologians of the Catholic Church. (Note 13)"

And here is the note:

"13. William Webster, "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History," pages 72-77."

Is there a reason that information as vital as this (the name of the heretic, the popes who rejected it with such fervor, etc are withheld? I'm wondering if I get this book in the library if I'll just get the same "a man" this and "popes" that, without any names or dates. In fact, I'll look for the book tomorrow and get back to you.

I would LOVE to take this piece and cut it to pieces. It wouldn't be the first time I've done such a thing; all I need is the time.

She's getting all of her information from two books written by ex-Catholics, and she herself is an ex-Catholic. Her quotes from the Catechism are a few words at best. She authoritively says what Bible verses really mean, ("In Luke 1:46-47, Mary said: "My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour". Mary knew that she needed a savior.") when the Catholic Church offers just as valid of an answer to that, which she non-objectively doesn't state.

And her chart...good grief. Example:

BIBLICAL MARY
Normal woman.

CATHOLIC MARY
Sometimes pictured standing on a crescent moon, wearing a crown or with a circle of stars around her head.

PAGAN GODDESS
Moon goddess.

The "Catholic Mary" depiction is taken directly from the book of Revelation, which she in no way denotes, and then randomly picks "a moon goddess," and equivocates it with the Catholic view of Mary. I see...now Catholics worship the moon godess! All so clear now...

And then of course, there are her outright lies. Example:

"The Catholic Church officially states that Church tradition is equal in authority to the Bible. ("Catechism" 80, 84, 86, 97)"

Paragraph 80 states that the two are bound closely together and communicate with one another. It never says it's equal, only necessary.

Paragraph 84 states simply that the deposit of faith is contained in both Sacred Scripture and Tradition. It never equates them.

Paragraph 86 is the real kicker. "Yes this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but its servant." Equality, eh?

Paragraph 97 is like paragraph 80. "Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God." This states that Tradition is the Word of God, and both elements comprise the Word of God, but it does not make it equal or greater than Scripture, only necessary.

If you're just aching for more demonstrations of how this testamony is utterly lacking, I'll be happy to show you.

God bless,

Grant

 

Revelation 12:1 to be precise.

I suppose this could be Mary, even though the author of Revelation decides to keep her name anonymous. It is just as likely in reference to the believing Messianic community spoken of in Revelation 7, hence the "twelve stars" representing the 12 tribes of Israel. Why would Mary have 12 stars on a crown?

Isaih 66:7-8 gives a similar account in reference to the rebirth of Zion.

As for the rest of your post, Ron was gracious enough to start a rant thread on the subject of Mary Ann Collin's essay here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001178

This way we can keep this thread on the topic of Mariolatry.

[ October 28, 2002, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

Is the dragon not the devil? Is the child not Jesus? Yet none of these are named. Also, while appreciate your interpretation, it is a tangeant. We're not trying to prove that if Mary is the object of the verse, but whether or not Mary is an object of worship. If this does really interest you, I will go into the Queenship of Mary as is illustrated in Revelation, and I'm sure my Catholic brethren will assist me.

Let me quote you, Clint:

"Did you read the article so that you could address or refute her assertions?"

Why did you challenge me if you're then going to tell me that I'm off topic and it's not appropriate? Could it be that you were merely attacking me out of spite? Are you big enough to admit that it's possible for you to do such a thing?

You set this woman's testamony up as proof that Catholics worship Mary. You attack the Catholics for not attempting to refute her. I refute her, and offer more if anyone wants it, and you tell me it's off topic.

No, the fact of the matter is that what you're considering on topic is discussion that tilts towards your interpretation. Call it pity-party all you want; you're guilty of it yourself.

As moderator, you owe it to ME AND OTHER CATHOLICS to remain objective in a debate, at LEAST to some degree. Telling me I'm off topic when I'm abiding by your OWN request is once again deceitful. It's as if I can't please you.

God bless,

Grant

 

Grant -

Here is where I originally posted the link and the quotes I pulled from it:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001175;p=2#00 0019

Please notice that they bear relevance to the discussion.

What do your other refutations have to do with the topic at hand, Grant?

If I am acting as a moderator, yes, I should. Have I deleted any posts here? Have I edited any post on this thread aside from my own?

Did you not read why I felt it necessary to enter this debate? You can find it here: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001175;p=4#00 0045

"I have been moderating this forum for 8 full months now and have seen these debates bear no fruit. Now that I have the assistance of two other moderators I am able to join in this debate without worry of a claim of 'pulling rank'."

What I owe you, Grant, is to expose you and the other readers to the unsubstantiated claims of the RCC regarding the semi-divinity (admitted or not) of Mary. I'm tired of this forum being a platform for Catholic proselytizing. Like it or not, I am holding this topic on course.

If you think I am acting in a manner unbefitting one of my status at this site, PLEASE feel free to contact one of the other two moderators, one of the other two administrators or the Webmaster himself. If you don't know who they are, I will provide you the link. If I am in error, I want to know.

In the meantime I will agree with the Apostles in their statement of Acts 5:29. You will not bully me away from this topic just because it doesn't suit your tastes. If it bothers you so badly, don't click the link. It's that easy.

[ October 28, 2002, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

Clint,

Any reason you completely ignored the heart of the post and focused only on the easy-to-attack emotion appeals I erroneously made?

Answer me:

Why did you challenge me if you're then going to tell me that I'm off topic and it's not appropriate?

You set this woman's testamony up as proof that Catholics worship Mary. You attack the Catholics for not attempting to refute her. I refute her, and offer more if anyone wants it, and you tell me it's off topic.

God bless,

Grant

 

My refutations make it clear that she is not a reliable source.

God bless,

Grant

 

My quote:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001175;p=4#000045

What assertions? The ones I quoted. Now if your ad hominem attack of me and my desire to explore the truth is over, I would very much like to get back to the subject at hand.

Incidentally, the serpant in Revelation 12 is named in verse 9. We can move on to the queenship of Mary if you wish. It's all interconnected. Perhaps in the morning I will review the thread and find what questions have not been answered concerning Mary worship.

 

If you do not wish to read the whole article but are interested in speaking with former Catholics who became enlightened to this, among other idolatries, they provide a website, mailing address and email.

Good News for Catholics
P.O. Box 595
Cupertino, CA 95015
E-mail: gnfc@gnfc.org
Web Site: http://www.gnfc.org

</font>[/QUOTE]Clint,

This was your post about the article....there is little to refute. I see a quote that uses tons of emotionally responsive words, referring to Jesus as 'little,' and 'dead' to place less emphasis on him, and words like 'power' to describe Mary and the saints. This, of course, is all her personal opinion and the way she takes it. I would not take it in such a way. What more about it do you want me to refute?

The only other thing you quote is the Hail, Holy Queen prayer. Is that what you want to discuss?

Other than those to things, you don't provide any other examples. In fact, you encourage everyone to read the entire "personal" letter.

So, Clint...what exactly am I avoiding? If it's the Hail, Holy Queen, why haven't you been stating that? If it's not, your last several posts have been utterly pointless and dodging the fact that you messed up.

Her story is completely flawed in it's proof. You did not provide much to refute from it (two things, one of which is her personal experience, and another is a prayer).

There you have it. What do you want, Clint?

God bless,

Grant

 

I concede; this is true. Of course, since "the dragon" is literal and not figurative, and surely "the child" is Jesus (literal, not figurative), it makes sense for "the woman" to be literal, and not figurative.

God bless,

Grant

 

Hi Clint,

Thanks Carson

You're welcome.

I am, however, having trouble locating this passage cited on that web page: In like manner Miphiboseth "fell on his face and worshipped" David (II Kings, ix, 6)

The numbering system of the 1912 Encyclopedia is different from what you are used to. The same book is 2 Samuel in your canon.

Also, am I to incur that "worship" and "adoration" are synonymous?

Words are used in different times and cultures differently, so it would be inappropriate to make such an equation without respect for when and where you reside within the milieu of humanity. Specifically within 21st c. American lingual usage, "worship" and "adoration" are synonymous, but "worship" in other cultures today and in times past may still be used to refer to "veneration".

Further, can you point me to a website(s) that may have the documents cited in this statement? The Seventh General Council, in 757 ... the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV)

Sure.

"The Seventh General Council" is synonymous with "The Seventh Ecumenical Council", which was the Second Council of Nicaea, which was held in 787 (from what I can tell, this reference is incorrect on the webpage).

You may find a complete description of this council at:

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/coun8.html

The Council of Trent's canons and decrees may be found at:

http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent.htm

I am particularly interested in what the Council of Trent had to say regarding the differences in these "adorations" and how they specifically arrived at such a concept. That seems to be at the heart of this matter.

Well, I would begin by analyzing what the difference is between honoring your father and mother (or a king or queen) and worshipping God. Usually the distinction is made in attributing divinity and/or offering sacrifice.

You may be surprised to learn that the Hebrew word for "honor" in Exodus 20:12 is kabad {kaw-bad}, which can also be translated, "to glorify".

Usually, Clint, at least in my experience, the good-willed Protestant who learns of the misunderstanding behind the use of the term "worship" in other cultures and who learns that Catholics reserve adoration for God alone will come to a newfound understanding and discontinue in this particular objection with peace of mind. But, for some reason, you continue to press on concerning the issue. I believe that the situation has been explained, and that the matter has been resolved quite sufficiently. But, we have different perspectives, and I must always assume good intentions.

God bless,

Carson

[ October 29, 2002, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

"Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant."

The Catholic church claims that it is the only one who can give an authentic interpret the Word of God:

According to Rome, scripture cannot speak for itself but requires that Rome speak for it. Rome says that it submits to the Word of God but denies it by trying to submit the Word of God to Rome. The above quote however does not treat the Word of God as consisting of only Scripture, instead it adds the tradition of Rome to it:

"the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition"

Therefore your attempted refutation on that point fails and suggests that even you naturally accept "Word of God" to mean Scripture distinct from tradition. The fact that Rome calls their "Tradition", the Word of God equates it with Scripture which really is the Word of God.

 

DualHunter,

Clint would not approve of us discussing this here. Please make a new thread and I will be happy to reply.

God bless,

Grant

 

That's interesting Dualhunter. So, I suppose that the twenty years between the Ascension and the first letter of New Testament Scripture penned down witnessed no apostolic preaching of the Christ event. No, the Word of God suddenly appeared on the pages of 1 Thessalonians two decades after Christ's heavenly enthronement. For twenty years, it didn't reside upon the lips of the Apostles and in the hearts of Christ's disciples, for the Word of God is restricted to pen and paper. Recognize the fallacy?

 

As Grant pointed out, the Catholic view of the authority of the Scriptures verses the authority of the Magisterium would be another excellent topic. I wouldn't count on it running too many pages as the Catholics allow this authority and seem to be convinced that it is the proper way for the church to be governed and salvation to be obtained. The debate would bear very little fruit, IMO, but it would serve to demonstrate to the membership and lurkers the Catholic perspective on Christianity. We have also seen demonstrated a serious amount of doubt cast upon the nature and the origin of the Scriptures by Carson in a number of posts now. The very fact that the credibilty of the Scriptures is shaken in such a way goes to show that the debate would not last long, at least not with any progression.

The elevation of the Magisterium to the level of God's word is also a large part of the reason that the (debated) worship of Mary continues despite the evidence presented against such a practice.

Carson - I have to hand it to you. I am convinced that you really do believe that what you do in regards to your worship of Mary is correct. That is why you have not flown off the handle and are not uncomfortable in discussing this. It is also why you do not feel the necessity to beat around the bush about it. I think if all the Catholics here had that confidence in their faith there would not be this constant effort at grabbing at straws to derail the conversation. I have to wonder if some of your fellow Catholics do not recognize something as being intrisically wrong with the practice of worshipping a fully human, non-divine creature or an idol of some sort.

I won't have the time today to pursue this as relentlessly as yesterday, but I do have a question about one of your last posts.

On the home page of the New Advent website there appears this text:

The copyright on the page is for 2002. There is also a link to a page called Byte by Byte, Catholic Encyclopedia Launched into Cyberspace (1997)

With this being the case, are not the definitions on the New Advent website reliable to today's culture? If not, did you see any contextual oversights on the page for adoration that should be corrected? (Of course, I'm sure you noticed that the page was riddled with typos, but I am not one to throw stones at another's typing skills. )

Further, I found no definition on that site for "veneration." Is this concept still synonymous with worship and if not how does it differ?

Also, am I to incur from your post that the word "worship" when applied to Mary actually means "honor" as it does in 2Samuel 9:6?

[ October 29, 2002, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

Good let's talk about this point which you made.

I pointed out to you as others did that Exodus says to make no image of anything in Heaven.

You defend the making of the image of the Angels by saying that they did not worship them.

Please, show me in Scripture where it says it is ok to make an image of something in Heaven as long as you do not worship it.

From Scripture... that is your standard.

You were previously asked this question, and instead of answering from Scripture, you pull out Mary Collin and insist that Catholics adress the uncountable accusations that she makes.

Mary Collin is not on this board. You are.

Show me the Scripture.

 

Once again you avoid the issue, GraceSaves was trying to say that Tradition is less than Scripture in the eyes of the Catholic church, yet that it denied by calling it the Word of God. The Apostles were given authority by Christ so that they could teach that which some of them would write. Luke testifies that what was written, was written so that we could know the exact truth of what we have been taught. He makes it clear that the testimony was given by eyewitnesses who were still alive at the time of his writing.

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things (1) accomplished among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who (2) from the beginning were (3) eyewitnesses and (4) servants of (5) the [1] word,
3 it seemed fitting for me as well, (6) having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you (7) in consecutive order, (8) most excellent (9) Theophilus;
4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been (10) taught. - Luke 1:1-4 NASB

20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms,
'(41) LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE,
AND LET NNE DWELL IN IT';
and,
'(42) LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.'
21 "Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that (43) the Lord Jesus went in and out among us--
22 (44) beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He (45) was taken up from us--one of these must become a (46) witness with us of His resurrection." - Acts 1:20-22 NASB

Notice that the replacement for Judas had to be somebody who had been with Jesus. To be an Apostle you either had to be with Christ when he was on the Earth or as in Paul's case Christ had to appear to you, and the other Apostles confirm you as an Apostle.

8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, (17) He appeared to me also.
9 For I am (18) the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I (19) persecuted the church of God. - 1 Corinthians 15:8-9 NASB

Paul was the final, Apostle, the last to whom Christ appeared and now nobody else meets the criteria to be an Apostle. Instead we are left with the testimony given by the Apostles so that we could know the exact truth of what we have been taught. Apostolic succession is a lie. The 11 Apostles required somebody who had been with them since the beginning, that rules out anybody alive today. Paul became an Apostle because Christ Himself appeared to him and made him an Apostle and Paul was the last to whom Christ appeared and not only that but the original Apostles who were with Christ are not around to confirm anyone nor do we see the many confirming miracles that the Apostles did, so nobody else can become an Apostle. So once again, we are left with the testimony given by the Apostles so that we could know the exact truth of what we have been taught. This testimony is Scripture, the Word of God.

Another thing that Catholics so completely ignore is that Jesus and the Apostles used the Old Testament extensively refuting the apparent Catholic belief that the early Church had no Scripture:

44 Now He said to them, "(41) These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the (42) Law of Moses and the Prophets and (43) the Psalms must be fulfilled." - Luke 24:44 NASB

23 When they had set a day for Paul, they came to him at (29) his lodging in large numbers; and he was explaining to them by solemnly (30) testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, (31) from both the Law of Moses and from the Prophets, from morning until evening. - Acts 28:23 NASB

 

Rant?

 

As for the issue of the Ark, I seem to recall somebody having already said that God commanded that the Ark be made that way and He never commanded (to my remembrance at least) that anybody bow down to, kneel to, pray to... the ark. Interestingly enough, nobody made an image of the Ark (little Ark statues to pray in front of at bed time) and yet Catholics who sometimes call Mary the Ark of the New Covenant so happily make statue after statue of Mary so that they will have a visible object to direct their prayers to.

 

Clint and DualHunter,

The written Word of God (the Bible or Sacred Scriptures) nowhere says that the Word of God is bound to written form.

Nowhere in the New Testament did Jesus Christ command that new Scripture be written, or did he even hint that it would come about.

None of the New Testament authors, while some did indicate that their work was inspired by the Holy Spirit, EVER stated that their work was part of "Scripture" and that it should be bound together in a book with other letters and Synoptic Gospels.

The Old Testament, already Sacred Scripture, did not indicate that a New Testament would ever be written.

THEREFORE, while Catholics and Protestants both wholeheartedly agree that the New Testament is indeed the Word of God, inspired and inerrant, it is a completely VALID (yet differing) belief that the Word of God is not and never has been limited to written form. You don't have to believe it; if you did, you'd be Catholic. The fact of the matter is that you cannot prove us wrong. If you COULD prove us wrong, there would be no debate. A wise professor of mine stated recently that it's ludicrous for people to think some things are self-evident. People don't argue about things that are self-evident unless they're not right in the head. Thus, if people argue, they are arguing things that are not self-evident. That's why the argue: to come to a concensus (hopefully).

That the entire Word of God is bound to the Bible is one belief. That the Word of God is contained in the Bible and in the teaching of Christ's established teaching body, the Magesterium, is another belief.

Now, if you think I'm wrong, fine. Your perogative. But guess what; that doesn't make you right, either. We're talking about faith, here, folks. Faith-based issues are only black-and-white to the individual who accepts them.

Does this cause divisions among us? Sadly, yes.

But, I dunno, being the silly optimist that I am, how about we look for common ground on certain issues before we attack the differences. That way, when we attack the differences, we're on a level playing field, and every two minutes we're not having to stop and define words.

Who's with me?

God bless,

Grant

[ October 29, 2002, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]